tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC September 9, 2014 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
lot of similar things. what it's really going to do is act sort of as a remote control and an alert the function for a lot of the stuff that happens on your phone. there's a new payments thing that they rolled out. >> they want all your money in the phone at all times so they can have access to it and you can use that instead of the credit card. >> as we know, everything is very secure all the time. >> totally secure. because it's apple, right? what could possibly go wrong. charlie rozell, thank you very much for joining us tonight. chris hayes is up next. just bomb the place and tell us about it later. this is "hardball." ♪ ♪ good evening i'm chris matthews in washington. you heard it right, that's the attitude of many on capitol hill according to one of them.
the president should just go to war with isis terrorists and tell us about it later? how about the constitution that puts that authority in the u.s. congress. why elect people to congress if they don't decide which wars we fight. what happened to the republicans out there charging president obama with exceeding his authority? did they want him to check with them on the big questions or not? isn't the decision to go to war a big question? is it worth having a vote on? give me a single reason why the u.s. congress should not have to vote on yet another war? joining me, congressmen schiff and garamendi from california. should the u.s. congress vote on whether we go to war with isis? >> absolutely. the president is talking about a multi-year campaign against isis. this is the thing congress should vote on. we ought to limit what the president can do and what he can't do.
it ought to have a sunset date. i hope that's what we'll do in the next two weeks. >> should there be a vote on whether we go to war. >> 535 of us raised our right hand and swore to uphold the constitution. the constitution says congress are the representatives of the people. they'll decide whether we go to war or not. absolutely, we have to vote. it's our responsibility. we represent the people of the united states. it's a decision for the people to make through our vote. we must vote. this is a big deal. it's our responsibility. the president has already started that process under the war powers act. he's notified congress that he's taking military action. those first steps, that sets in place the 60-day clock. that 60-day clock right now says we have to vote by october 7th.
>> what about the substance, would you support a resolution which included the use of special forces on the ground? >> well, i don't want to see major ground troops -- >> no, special ops. people working with the free syrian army. like we used in afghanistan in the beginning. >> you know, i support what we're doing on the ground in iraq now and we have military advisers that are trying to give us good intelligence, trying to help train the iraqi forces, helping us be more precise in our strikes. i don't think we're there yet in syria, chris. we don't have the same ground capability that we have in the peshmerga to work with. so i think it's premature to be talking about air strikes in syria or boots on the ground of any sort in syria. and this means that it's going to be a very challenging issue in terms of drafting an authorization. but without a force that can hold ground in syria, if we displace isis through air strikes, does it mean al-nusra moves in? assad's forces move in?
until we can answer those questions, i don't think we ought to be contemplating a major air campaign in syria. >> so you don't want to go into syria, just iraq? >> it would have to be narrowly drawn as it pertains to syria. if we discovered there was an active cell in syria, posing an imminent threat to the united states, that's something where it would be appropriate for us to take action -- >> how do we stop them from beheading our people? they're in syria, beheading our people. how do you stop that if you don't go into syria itself where they're beheading us? >> it's very difficult without having a major military force there, to be able to rescue those hostages or prevent other hostages from being taken. but at the same time, we have to ask ourselves, are we willing to have another major occupation of a muslim country, and is that in the best long-term interests of the united states? i don't think it is. and we shouldn't be provoked by these acts, as horrific as they
are, into doing things that will be ultimately be counterproductive? >> do we go into syria with special forces and whatever units we have to? >> i think special forces, if they do the rescue operation that ultimately fails, i think that's appropriate. to go in and work with a syrian group, assuming we can figure out which one. no. i think there's something we can do in syria, find out where mr. baghdadi is, and put in his back pocket a hell-fire missile. that's a possibility we ought to keep open and available to us. i know we're into another country. i know mr. assad is there and all that goes with that. but i think we have, as we have in pakistan, the necessity of taking out these leaders wherever they may be around the world. if it's in somalia or pakistan, wherever, take them out in a
limited way. so this resolution that's going to come up for a vote needs to be very, very carefully crafted. i don't want to see renewed heavy duty military operations, such as we saw in iraq and afghanistan. no way. but limited, the real secret here or answer, lies in making sure we have a coalition. we have to make sure that the surrounding countries, iraq, turkey, the gulf states, jordan, and others, are working together. they're the ones that are ultimately going to have to carry this fight and occupy the ground just as mr. schiff suggested a few moments ago. it's up to them to occupy particularly iraq. >> it's interesting you both believe we should have a vote and you decide on this issue. a republican from georgia, he told the "new york times" today that neither his democratic nor his republican colleagues want a vote. quote, a lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, just bomb the place and tell us about it later.
it's an election year, a lot of democrats don't know how it would play in their party. and republicans don't want to change anything, like the path we're on now. we can denounce it if it goes bad and praise it if it goes well. so there a cynical view by a republican. and i don't think there's anything wrong with congressman kingston, maybe a well founded view politically. but he's saying, you guys make the decision in the white house and we'll decide whether to shoot at it or not. >> chris, there are people on both sides of the aisle that would be happy not to have to vote on this. but the reality is, this is part of our constitutional responsibility. if we're not willing to do it, we don't belong here. so i think this is something that is difficult, as painful as it is, and as risky politically as it may be, this is something we need to do. and if we don't, frankly, we in congress have only ourselves to blame if congress in the
institutional scheme of things becomes even more diminished as an institution. >> take a look at this. i want you to respond to this poll. wall street journal poll shows the country is supportive for action against isis. one reason might be the impact of the beheading videos. 6 out of 10 americans say they've seen the coverage of james foley and steven sotloff. the biggest story is the beheadings. as a result, 61% of the american people say, taking military action against isis in iraq and syria is in the national interest. what exactly should that look like? 40% of americans say they would support only air strikes. 34% would support air strikes and combat troops on the ground. so in total at least, 3/4 say they would support at least air strikes. your thinking about that, congressman garamendi? >> i think they have not fully
considered all of the factors involved. the extraordinary cost of the afghanistan war, the terrible outcome of the iraq war. we need to be very measured, very deliberate, and very, very careful. but we do need to vote. the law says we need to vote. the constitution says we need to vote. we didn't come here to play chicken. we came here to do our job, and that means we have to vote. we have to be very careful as we construct a resolution that will authorize the president to carry on an appropriate level of military action. i am not in any way going to vote to move back into iraq with heavy duty troops as we have in the past. air strikes, okay, we have the advisers on the ground. that's enough for me. realize this solution here does not lie in american military presence in this area. we've done that. we did it for a decade. it didn't work.
we need to make sure that the countries surrounding this area, they're the ones that have the real risk here. we do have risks, no doubt about it. but the real risk lies in the countries around it. they need to put the troops on the ground. the iraq government needs to get its act together. that's in process. new prime minister, a new cabinet in place. and hopefully they'll reach out and try to heal the wounds of the divisions that malachi put in over the last six, seven years. so there's work to be done, but we have our job to do. we cannot and should not duck this responsibility. and when we do this, full debate, maybe the american public will have a better understanding of how this can have a good outcome rather than an outcome and go down the path that we did with the first and the second iraq war. >> okay, thanks so much. coming up, my interview with u.s. senator kirsten gillibrand of new york. we'll talk about the two big stories of the day. whether the senate should have a
vote on whether we go to war against isis. and violence against women, like the kind in the videotape that cost ray rice his job. the national football league is facing big questions tonight. what did they know and when did they know it? for one, they knew about the earlier tape showing rice dragging his fiancee's limp body out of the elevator. that should have been all they needed to fire him. plus the police report. plus tonight battle for the control of the senate. despite the doom sayers, some good democratic candidates are giving some reasons for their party to stay in power. and finally the constitutional responsibility for congress to vote for a war or against it. this is "hardball," a place for politics.
to improve relations between the police department and the community. the death of michael brown last month set off violent protests and city leaders vowed to hire more african american police officers and improve outreach between the city and its citizens. 70% of whom are african american. we'll be right back. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial.
and why with our partner in brazil, we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go. we're back and joining us right now is the rising star in democratic politics today, senator gillibrand from new york. the arthur of a hot new book, off the sidelines. the story everyone's talking about, speaks directly to abuse of women that you've tried to legislate about. i'm talking about the images of ray rice and the lack of interest by the nfl leadership, especially commissioner roger goodell. as multiple people pointed out, goodell had the evidence that rice knocked out his fiancee. there was a police report which said he struck her. the original video shows him
dragging her on to the floor from the elevator. that was all out there. now there's more palpable anger about it, that he feared public opinion and looked the other way. calls for his resignation have begun. what does this tell us about the accountability or lack thereof in protecting women? >> it's part of a big story and a long story. certainly the nfl got this wrong. it's outrageous. it's disgraceful. he needs to be punished. and i think there needs to be accountability. but it is part of this larger issue of, how are women treated
in society? we have sexual assault on college campuses with no transparency. we have huge challenges in the military. that's why these issues need to be raised and we need to hear women's voices when we begin to advocate for change. >> what about the guy, it's a male at the top, roger goodell. he knew this person had been knocked out by the male in this case. should he have said something then, rather than waiting for the full tape to be released that we're looking at now? it seems like they're only reacting to the public disclosure, not to the reality? >> i think that's right. that's what you see time and time again. in cases like this, in many areas. we know he admitted to beating his wife and that he dragged her out of an elevator well in advance. he should have been suspended then and fired. it's really an issue of a conduct and a behavior that's criminal, that there should be no tolerance for in any setting. and we need better accountability. our football players are role models for our kids. we need to make sure that they're held to a higher standard, and at least a standard of accountability that should have been done here. >> here's janay palmer, by the way, then fiancee at the time. she wrote, no one knows the pain that the media and unwanted options from the public has caused my family.
to take something away from the man i love, that he has worked for his whole life. this is our whole. know we will continue to grow and show the world what real love is. how do you explain that? you can't get particular with her. but why would a woman who has been knocked out cold, dragged across the floor and kicked around to get her out of the elevator, to say later, this is what real love's about or something? how do you explain that syndrome? >> one of the challenges we face in the military context and the college campus context, you have to define this behavior as the crime that it is. college campuses, when you say rape, it's just a college prank, its not serious. oh, they had too much to drink. no, these are brutal crimes. these are crimes of violence, crimes of domination, and if you don't call them for the crimes that they are, you don't have
the justice and accountability that you desperately need. so you see it in all these instances where we're not looking at these action as the crimes they are. it's a problem. it's a larger societal problem and it's about how we value women and how we value women in society. we don't see enough justice. >> do you sense there's something changing about women in leadership? let's go to the top. your name is mentioned a lot and elizabeth warren's name and secretary clinton, i think most people think she's the probable nominee if she runs for president next time. what is it that's come? is it an idea who's time has come? is it like suffrage the last part of the century? what's happening because i think the glass ceiling may be notching up several floors right now. >> one of the things i talk about in the book, we need to break the highest glass ceiling.
i'm supporting hillary in 2016, i think he'll be great. but women's role in the workplace, how do you help women get off the sticky floor? stop this continuation of women being pulled down into the lowest wage jobs over and over again. so it's part of this broader conversation of how do we support women in the workplace? and part of it is getting women to the corporate boards, on the school board, and hillary clinton running and winning the presidency. >> let's go to isis for a moment. a decision a lot of members of congress are trying to duck. do you believe that you as a united states senator should have a role here whether we go after isis militarily? >> i do. i think there are certain things the president can do on his own. there are actions he can take to protect u.s. personnel, embassies, et cetera. but if this is going to be a long and protracted assault on isis, that's going to be multi. faceted, over many years, there's a role for congress to
play. i know we're war weary as a country, but this is a serious threat and it must be addressed. isis is fast-moving, it has metastasized, it has a lot of resources. it's a threat on our interests. we do need to engage and i think there's a role for congress to play, especially as our strategies and as our approach begins to shift and change. we will have a necessary role. >> well, our nbc poll tonight reports that the number one news story in the last five years was the beheadings of those americans in the last couple weeks. they're horrific. my question, when it comes to how we fight this, everybody seems to be for air attacks, strikes, drone attacks, then you get the boots on the ground and everybody's against that. but what about the central question? should we send in special forces to support the moderate opposition groups there like the free syrian army? >> in syria, that's a far more complex issue. you know, i've met with the opposition leaders at many stages as they've shifted. and the biggest national security interest for the united
states in syria has always been the presence of severe chemical weapons that can be sold to terrorist groups, used against americans and american allies. so the issue has always been, how do we lock down and destroy those chemical weapons? when i was talking to opposition leaders, they wouldn't even make a deal with the u.s. to say, the minute a sad falls, we get to go in and destroy those weapons, because they were against u.s. forces and coalition forces doing that. so it's a really complex mission as to what missions we would do in syria, but we have a national interest in making sure the chemical weapons are destroyed. we don't know if we've gotten them all and assad is a horrible man who's used chemical weapons against his open people. but what tactics we use is a serious issue and i'm eager to hear what president obama says on wednesday.
he'll lay out his strategy for isil and iraq and if and what he could want to do with regard to syria. >> a political question. i want your view. you got about six weeks now to save the senate. how do you do it? >> i think we'll win. i think our candidates are great. i've been really focused on helping a lot of the women candidates. outstanding candidates. a bunch of challengers, alison grimes, michelle nun, natalie tenant. it's exciting. i think these are tough races to win, but our candidates are strong and i'm optimistic. >> what's the worst thing that will happen if the democrats lose the senate? explain that to the people. >> the biggest problem if we lose the senate is the supreme court. the senate is unique in its role of being able to approve nominees and vote for nominees.
if there are any openings in the rest of his administration, that would be at risk. and i think if you look at the issues the supreme court decides on, it's health care, whether we have money in politics. lgbt rights and equality, every issue tends to rise to the supreme court, our nation, our core values, i believe are at risk if that courts shifts to conservative. >> if you're a woman who wants to get ahead and to the top, get this book, "off the sidelines." thanks so much, senator, for coming on the show. we love you back. and tomorrow night on "hardball," the one and only bill maher will be with us right here in washington. please join us for that. that will be a change of pace. this is "hardball," a place for politics.
looks like we're about to board. mm-hmm. i'm just comparing car insurance rates at progressive.com. is that where they show the other guys' rates, too? mm-hmm. cool. yeah. hi. final boarding call for flight 294. [ bells ring on sign ] [ vehicle beeping ] who's ready for the garlic festival? this guy! bringing our competitors' rates to you -- now, that's progressive.
the november elections. >> i want to spend some time, even as we're getting all our ducks in a row for the executive action, i want to make sure the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. >> he wants to dot the i's and cross the t's. naturally the president's decision has left hispanic supporters asking, senor obama, donde esta los cojones? [ laughter ] >> that was stephen colbert last night on the president's decision to delay action on immigration until after elections. scott brown who is running for senate in new hampshire got a unhelpful introduction at a rally yesterday in portsmouth. the ton of former new hampshire governor sununu was describing an encounter when his story look a turn for the weird. >> someone came up and said, i'd
love to meet scott. i always thought he was kind of a phony from massachusetts. and i said, you got to sit down with him. because he sat down, they had their conversation, he walked away. you know what he said? he goes, that guy, he's a phony from new hampshire, that just happened to live in massachusetts for a while. >> it's not clear why he thought that was going to help. >> next up, private moments with the president. take a look at this. that's the president saying farewell to a departing member of the secret service. to the left there, you can see the agent's son appears to be taking a head first dive into the oval office couch. here's how it was described. back flip from the desk. didn't stick the landing. that might be the most action a white house couch has seen since jimmy carter slept on one 34 years ago.
finally, arnold schwarzenegger stopped by the state capital to unveil his official portrait. but apparently the painting was not good enough for jimmy kimmel, who showcased a different version last night, one more appropriate for the former action movie star. >> they unveiled his official portrait. they do this for all the governors, even the ones who are in "the expendables" and i have to say, the artist did a very good job. those are his sons, schwarzenegger's sons. and he always said he'd be back and sure enough there he was. >> up next, big questions facing the national football league. didn't they have all the information they needed on ray rice even before yesterday's video from inside the elevator? since that came out, anyway, you're watching "hardball," a place for politics.
the question i have, why wasn't the original video enough to elicit that response to the league immediately? the police said he was struck by his hand rendering her unconscious. why did it take the video of the punch itself to prompt the kind of response the nfl went through this yesterday? >> joining me, don edwards of maryland, kim gandy, and former philadelphia eagles quarterback don mcpherson. it's eagles by the way, not eagles. anyway, thank you, sir, for joining us. congresswoman edwards, you've been on the show so many times. this is a judicious decision, we saw her lifelessly being dragged out of an elevator. a police summons which said she had been punched and knocked cold by this guy. why wasn't that enough to take him out of the league? >> it should have been. a think it's not enough for the nfl to say, we got it wrong.
they got it horribly wrong. and what is happening right now, the combination of that video just underscores how wrong they got it. >> you know, i just wonder, if it was a guy he knocked out in the elevator, i mean, this is aggravated assault. it's not like, oh, he was having a bad night and we get along. respond to this, generally speaking, how does this fit into the category of violence against women, as you see it, in the whole range of things? >> there's no question. this is a perfect demonstration of the kind of domestic violence that we see all the time. and i'll tell you, if this had been a guy he punched out in that elevator, this prosecutor would not have given him pretrial diversion. >> you mean, in other words, counselling? >> yeah, exactly. >> let me go to a football player. don, what do you think of this? i think football players are supposed to be tough, you hit the line hard, it's a contact sport, it's about being a
strong, macho kind of guy. what other players, when other players see this, what's the reaction? >> i think the reaction is as the general public has had the reaction when they saw the actual punch itself, recoiled back how horrific this was. i think the problem, what's so disturbing, is that the initial video wasn't enough for the ravens to take action with one of their employees. if that had been anyone on the set, we all would be out of a job. so the problem is, we know something happened in that elevator. did we have to see the video evidence? the problem is, not that the ravens or the nfl saw the video. it's that the public saw the video of the punch, and that's why the ravens took action. >> i'm looking at the picture we saw before, congresswoman, when we saw him pulling her out of the elevator and then kicking her to move her into position she wouldn't be caught by the moving elevator.
then he start of tries to shake her awake. why do you think she stood up for him again today? is this some syndrome? what would you call it? >> chris, i want to tell you, i've worked on domestic violence for a long time. i used to have kim gandy's job, and i know we'll have to offer support to janay and other women who experience violence. he may not identify herself as a victim or a survivor of domestic violence. but there's going to come a point at which she's going to understand that and know that, and have to look out for her own safety. so i don't want to place the blame and focus on her and her response. the question is, what our system does to respond. whether those are employers like the nfl, whether it's the judicial system, and a prosecutor who, you know, negotiates a pretrial diversion program for a clearly brutal assault that ought to be prosecuted. these are system responses that are needed and we don't need to place the blame on victims like
janay rice. we need to make sure that the system works, so it prevents him from doing it to any other woman. >> it's about the testimony in court. how does a judge or prosecutor move ahead without testimony of the person that was hit? >> they do it all the time, and they can do it. that videotape, the statement is enough to move forward on, whether it's a restraining order, a prosecution or a conviction. and so we can't just depend on victims to be the one, because there are a lot of issues that they're going through as well. >> i understand. >> -- to pursue a prosecution. this is about the public interest and pursuing a prosecution for a violent offense, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen. it shouldn't be allowed to stand. and the nfl needs to stand in the court of public opinion to explain why it is they didn't act before now. it's outrageous to look at those first pictures and wonder what, did she think happened in the elevator? did she hit herself? clearly from the statement.
i don't understand now the nfl's inaction. we're talking about a history here. i remember working in 1993, before the passage of the violence against women act, on a super bowl ad, with the nfl. recognizing the need to educate the public and to be leaders in leading on this issue of domestic violence. they need to get it right in their own house. >> were you surprised by the actual picture inside the elevator? >> i wasn't really surprised. i had a pretty good idea from the first video what had happened inside the elevator. >> roger goodell, who generally gets good marks, should he be kicked out now for not doing anything about this for all these months? you said you had enough information in february. why didn't he act on that information that he had, because you had it? >> i think that one of the things that they do is to wait for the legal system to go through its process, and i think
that's what they're doing with ray mcdonald. whether or not that's a good idea, they wait for the process to end. he took action after the prosecutors game him a diversionary program. they know they got it wrong. >> what's that picture going to mean to pro football and the image of the players and their self-awareness of this kind of situation? my experience with guys, they don't talk about this. i don't know whether this guy ever talks about it with his buddies. why would he ever talk about decking his wife? i can't imagine anybody talking like that. so it's kind of a secret world. what do you think the reaction of his peers will be when they see it? >> i think it will be split. there are a number of players who are appalled by the behavior and the silence of the league and the organization. i think it's going to be a good thing, there will be good conversation from guys in the league who say, this does not
represent our league. that's what the nfl should be doing, saying ray rice and these guys involved in criminal activity don't define the league. and the nfl needs to go on a pr campaign to show there are positive men in the league, and these guys don't represent it. that's the message they need to send to younger men who aspire to be in the nfl. >> sunday we'll have a training program for -- just kidding. it's not this bad. but it can be pretty rough at those games. thank you for joining us. up next, two months before the mid terms and president obama has a chance to unite his party, possibly save the senate for the democrats. that's coming up ahead here. this is "hardball," a place for politics. your baby will feel like dancing when they wake up
>> tomorrow night on "hardball," we'll be joined by bill maher. he'll be right here in the studio as we talk politics and look ahead to president obama's primetime speech tomorrow night. that's bill maher tomorrow on "hardball." please join us for that. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] identity theft... it's one of the fastest growing crimes in america. there's a new victim of identity theft every three seconds. makes you wonder -- "am i next?" one weak password could be all it takes --
or trusting someone you shouldn't. over 70 million records with personal information were compromised in recent security breaches. you think checking your credit cards or credit report protects you? of course, lifelock can do that for you. but lifelock also helps protect you from more serious fraud, like attempts to get a mortgage in your name. take over your bank accounts, or even drain your investment accounts. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. alerting you to threats by text, phone or email. ♪ your response helps stop thieves before they do damage, with three layers of protection, detecting threats to your finances, alerting you to potential danger. and if there's a problem, your resolution expert helps restore your identity. ♪ banks and credit cards alone can't offer protection like that. plus, it's backed by a $1 million service guarantee.
if your identity is compromised, lifelock will spend up to $1 million on experts to help restore it. try lifelock risk free for 60 days. enter promo code easy. act now and get this convenient multi-device charger to charge all your devices at the same time -- a $30 value free! call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. try the most comprehensive identity theft protection available risk free for 60 days with promo code easy. plus get a multi-device charger free. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. ♪ >> welcome back to "hardball." the political experts aren't sugar coating it anymore. for the democrats, big trouble this fall.
rothen berg was straight. that means tsunami time. much like kennedy turned it around in '62, president obama will have a chance at least to unite the country around his own foreign policy challenges coming up tomorrow night. for all of the talk of a wave, democratic candidates aren't keeping it close. with less than two months to go until election day, this thing isn't quite over. steve mcmahon is a democratic strategist and also nbc prized political analyst. you were laughing about this before we came on. i want to know why members of the united states congress are paid about 170 a year to vote. they don't want to vote on whether we go to war against isis. >> because the risk is too great for the dems. they don't want to have that
debate right now on foreign policy. republicans would be more inclined to it because they feel the american people probably will stand with them to do something you've heard -- >> they don't mind being hawkish? >> they don't mind being hawkish, because they're being hawkish for an agenda. tell us exactly the strategy, mr. president. so think -- >> so tomorrow night, it will be on national television. the question is, why do the democrats not want to vote? we got some harsh responses when we called the offices today, especially the leadership. >> i think the democrats aren't sure what they're voting on. >> you're hedging. why don't they want to say, yes we're going to war with isis or not. >> i think any democrat in a purple state should support the president and do what we need to do with isis because of the threat to the country. i don't understand why democrats are reluctant to vote. liberal democrats don't want to seem hawkish.
everybody's skiddish. everybody in these races if you're a democrat would do well to support the president, to go in there and try to eradicate isis, and i think that would benefit politically from it. >> would you rather be a democrat that support the president, or a democrat that doesn't do anything and supports the beheadings? >> i would be the democrat who is tough on the president. president bush knew this well. at times of war and peace, when the country is threatened, the american people stand with the president. he won the 2004 election by returning it to these issues and probably shouldn't have. i think the president will benefit -- >> we have a republican out there, kingston saying the people out there he talks to, don't want to vote. just go ahead and bomb and tell us later. >> i think that goes back to the bush times where that's what the
mantra was. shoot first and ask questions later. >> where are you on that one? >> i think we ask questions first. i think we want to have a strategy here. i think it's going to be smart politically -- >> do you think both parties are wary of war? >> i think both parties are wary of war. >> we are very, very conflicted. we don't like people being beheaded. it gets to our national gut; my gut. anyway, republicans have been trying to make this selection. coming up, a referendum on president obama finding every way they can to tie their democratic rival to the president. >> right now, we're being represented by someone who votes with the president's stale policies 99% of the time. >> she's voted with president obama 95% of the time. by kay's on standard, she's failed the people of north carolina. >> senator, i've heard you say the word harry reed, obama, fight. >> he's your buddy, man.
he's your buddy. >> he's your buddy. is that the strategy of the republy karens? >> that's exactly what the strategy is. >> i shouldn't say bowling, that's the one sport he's not good at. >> it's me and a picture of george bush standing side-by-side when i was running for the u.s. senate. so that's a strategy when you have an unpopular white house and an unpopular president. >> and i voted for you withstanding that. >> i know you did. >> that actually works pretty well in house elections. in a senate race, take mark pryor, for instance. people vote for the individual. they know mark. the president isn't going to help mark, but he's not going to defeat him, either. >> i'm afraid. i have to make an admission.
i think when you go into the voting booth this time, the name at the top of the ballot is going to be obama. >> i agree. >> that's what the republicans want. >> it's the people in the races that are going to decide the senate. they know how to run in those states. they've been red states for a long time and they've won there as democrat. >> i agree with that. it's not what the republicans want, but it's what the american people think and feel about this administration. the administration is not, technically, on the ballot. let me finish. the only way you can talk with the current administration is to take it out on the current party. >> you become a symbol? tell that to eric cantor. tell it to mitch mcconnell. he's two points behind right now in the latest poll that just came out. >> just out tonight, brand new, it show that is women are keeping democrats in the game
this year. ha% responded said democrats would do a better job looking out for the interest of women. more than half the people in the country are women. >> absolutely. it is why you see in places like kansas and kentucky and elsewhere, they want to make it much more of a local race and not a national race. when it's localized, it's about those issues that women are more deeply concerned about. when it's nationalized, that's when you see the flipped in the script. that's where republicans are seeing who can get them on their side. >> why shouldn't women vote for democratic candidate sns. >> republican candidates stand in their way. >> see how nice that was? >> right now, in any campaign cycle, it's a referendum.
at some point, it becomes a choice between two people. what happens is do i dislike the incumbent right now? do i dislike washington? yes. in the last few weeks, what's the alternative. >> you know what i'd like to do, guys? i'd like to think about the stories the day after the election. and i think the story after this election will be the unpopularity of the president. i hate to say it because i support him on many issues -- most issues. but i think it's going to be how unpopular he was. we'll be right back after this. (male announcer) it's happening.
today, more and more people with type 2 diabetes are learning about long-acting levemir®, an injectable insulin that can give you blood sugar control for up to 24 hours. and levemir® helps lower your a1c. levemir® is now available in flextouch® - the only prefilled insulin pen with no push-button extension. levemir® lasts 42 days without refrigeration. that's 50% longer than lantus®,
which lasts 28 days. today, i'm asking about levemir® flextouch. (female announcer) levemir® is a long-acting insulin, used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes and is not recommended to treat diabetic ketoacidosis. do not use levemir® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause symptoms such as sweating, shakiness, confusion, and headache. severe low blood sugar can be serious and life-threatening. ask your doctor about alcohol use, operating machinery, or driving. other possible side effects include injection site reactions. tell your doctor about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions. check your blood sugar levels. your insulin dose should not be changed without asking your doctor. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, sweating, extreme drowsiness, dizziness, or confusion. (male announcer) today's the day to ask your doctor about levemir® flextouch. covered by nearly all health insurance
let me finish tonight with this. people run for congress, let's imagine, because they want a role in leading the country. they want to represent the people in making the big decisions of american government. well, that is reasonable enough to assume, isn't it? that you really want the job. not just the title. not just the position. well, maybe we should stop making that assumption. maybe we should assume that many of them desire most is the position, the title. that they're willing do give up power in order to retain what they desire most, that title. how else can we explain this refusal to accept responsibility. it's now coming loud and clear from capital hill. it seems hardly anybody in the u.s. congress, house or senate, democrat or republican, is ready to step up and say whether or not the united states should take the fight to the group
that's been beheading our fellow citizens. if this stands, if the congress refuses to hold a vote on action against isis, we are not looking at a proud, representative body. we'll be looking at a chicken coupe. a grand-looking building where those are afraid to stand and be counting. a lot of his fellow lawmakers say that president obama should just bomb the place and tell us about it later. they don't want it up and down, yeah or nay in a recent vote. congress enjoys a job approval of 7%. that's one person in 15 who's doing it right. have you ever met that one person in 15 who thinks they're doing well in congress? it's that person who live ins a shack and never sees any news at all. that's "hardball" for now. i'll be back at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow with bill marz.
"all in" with chris hayes starts right now. >> tonight on "all in". >> we are at a critical moment facing a serious danger. and now is the time to act together. >> congress is preparing for a vote. the president is preparing his isis address and new polling shows americans actuallily want another war. have they been misled? >> we assumed there was a video, we asked for a video but we were never grant that had opportunity. >> an nfl commissioner defends his actions. and a day after her husband was cut and suspended, we hear from janay rice for the first time. plus, one month after the death of mike brown, a big announcement out of ferg sompb. >> it's chris mat for capitalists. while everybody swoons, we'll tell you about the technology